Skip to main content

About this Show

Crossfire

News/Business. Newt Gingrich, Stephanie Cutter, S.E. Cupp and Van Jones host daily debates of the day's issues. New.

NETWORK
CNN

DURATION
00:31:00

RATING
TV-MA

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Channel v759

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
1920

PIXEL HEIGHT
1080

TOPIC FREQUENCY

Us 6, America 4, Minnesota 3, Paul Ryan 3, Newt Gingrich 2, Van 2, Nelson Mandela 2, Pawlenty 2, Abercrombie 2, United States 2, Philips Sonicare 2, Aig 2, Sebelius 2, Neil Abercrombie 2, Hawaii 2, Pentagon 1, White Flag 1, Thepentagon 1, Obamca 1, Dick Durbin 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  CNN    Crossfire    News/Business. Newt Gingrich, Stephanie Cutter, S.E. Cupp  
   and Van Jones host daily debates of the day's issues. New.  

    December 9, 2013
    3:30 - 4:01pm PST  

3:30pm
here's senator rand paul over the weekend. this guy would make scrooge very proud. >> you're causing them to become this part of perpetual unemployed group in our economy. while it seems good, it does a disselfto the people you're trying to help. >> uh, no. welcome to the real world, senator, where there are still three job applicants for every one job out there, cutting the lifeline for active job seekers there not magically create, but it will put -- cutting unemployment benefits? that is a five ho ho ho, newt gingrich. first, let me say i believe there are things we could do to dramatically improve the impact. to actually prepare people for getting to work and versus a better job in the future. but took in the crossfire, weapon hawaii's democratic
3:31pm
governor, neil abercrombie, and tim pawlenty, in a different life another colleague of mine. we're delighted to have both of you here this evening. governor, economists like larry summers, who was an adviser both to president obama and before that to president clinton have concluded that long-term unemployment compensation actually reduces participate in the work force and makes it harder for the economy to grow. what's your reaction? >> my first reaction is a lot of economists have jobs telling people why they don't have one. so i'm not particularly impressed by that. i would prefer po refer back, mr. speaker we should be about job creation. we can solve the problem with unxwloimt if we move -- not just to create jobs, but crete the
3:32pm
opportunity for jobs. our unemployment rate was 3.8% in august. we've brought that down from the high levels that it was at before, the 6-plus, 7%. the way we did that is that we invested in infrastructure. we made investments that created top paying jobs for people in circumstances in which there was a direct public benefit from the investment. so i'm for job creation. that will get rid of the unemployment. >> let me give you one example, that's a real case study. this summer in north carolina, where they ended up not having extended unemployment compensation, and all of a sudden you had a dramatic drob, dropped almost a full percentage point because people went out
3:33pm
and looked for jobs. that sort of matching -- you can't do that with hawaii. if you go around and look at the rest of the country, state by state comparisons, you do see has a dramically lower unemployment rate. >> why should we be concentrating on how to keep people to have an -- it's not as if someone receiving unemployment benefits will invest in long-term real estate return or buying paintings for -- hoping that the ecity will suddenly appear. no, they put the money directly into the economy. they're buying food, paying bills. >> i want to ask you about this, governor. you have some economists who say that it has a negative effect. larry summers now says that it's got for the economy, because it has people going and buying stuff at the grocery, keeping
3:34pm
the economy going. some people say if you cut the benefits, you lose a quarter of a million jobs, you guys think folks are just sitting around, lazy? 1.3 million americans are lazy? >> of course not, van. you know better than that. >> then why take the lifeline -- >> let's not lump all republicans in one group. remember that speaker boehner is saying, look, i'm open to an extension as part of a budget deal, on the other side you had dick durbin say we don't necessarily have to have this just our way. so point one s. let's not let this issue upset a budget deal or a debt ceiling deal, which we need to keep the economy moving more broadly. in that is there room for compromise? of course. when it was 99 weeks, it's different from now, say 47 weeks, so now the super turbocharged level, but need mentioned earlier some states
3:35pm
didn't extend the benefits. those states were probably mostly red states, frankly, with probably better economies to begin with, perhaps like texas, for example, or kansas, south dakota, north dakota, with other things going on, so it's hard to separate correlation and causation, but if you have somebody in the job market two years, and they say i've been unemployed for two years, newt has been unembroiled for three months, which one will you be looking at more seriously? irmgts i still don't understand. if you don't have 1.3 lazy americans. i do know people in the situation, actively trying to find the jobs. what's the moral case for further punishing them? what's the economic case for cutting out the jobs they're supporting? >> i've been a supporter in minnesota for some extension, but keep in mind there's the basic, there's the enhassed and then the turbocharged. when you get to the turbocharged level and say let's keep it
3:36pm
there for two years? people say, wait a minute, if and you have window for somebody to say not a benefit for a year, but two years, to the extent that some are out of the job market for two years, it may be a disincentive and may send a signal that they're unemployable. not all reps are against this, and i think it should be -- >> first put on the table, baud i think we're on the same wavelength here, he's a big supporter of training, and they doesn't mean that just for a rhetorical gesture. this goes to the point that both of you made about long-term unemployment. who are you going to look at somebody versus three months versus three years? and governors should be a stimulus to that. people say run government like a business. no, government is a bit. in terms of infrastructure and meeting the common needs of the community, the government makes
3:37pm
investments. if we do that, then the person who's been out of work for a year, say the accountant, who is 55 years old, got let go from perhaps a smaller business, couldn't keep that accountant, but if we're coming into a situation, with airport expansion, because we want pea -- working with the airline committee with private interpies, we can put those people to work. >> do you have a problem with this stuff? >> this is my question. i would be much more interested? extending unemployment if they would attach a provision that every statement could experiment with finding ways to say if we're going to give you money, you need to be in an apprenticeship program or job training program or something, so we're using it as a work training program, not a way to warehouse people you. >> those thinks are not antithey cal at all. we're doing it right now. we're offering that to people right now, and people are taking
3:38pm
advantage. as i indicated, in our own state, and i'm sure governor pawlenty has done the same thing in minnesota. we zero in on infrastructure, and we put people to work. in the process we have training programs at the county and state level, which often are with a federal program, right? >> there's something else that should be said here. the gao said a couple years ago that the federal -- not the state, the federal workforce training programs and retraining programs are an absolute mess, organizationally from a managerial standpoint, from a financial standpoint and they need to be overhauled, streamlined and made more effective. since that time, not much has been done. that's unfortunate particularly in these times. >> the last-minute deal making on capitol hill barely scratches the surface. there is a way to break out of the obama economy. i'll share some ideas with you, next.
3:39pm
we're aig. and we're here. to help secure retirements and protect financial futures. to help communities recover and rebuild. for companies going from garage to global. on the ground, in the air, even into space. we repaid every dollar america lent us. and gave america back a profit. we're here to keep our promises. to help you realize a better tomorrow. from the families of aig, happy holidays. ♪ [ male announcer ] the parking lot helps by letting us know who's coming. the carts keep everyone on the right track. the power tools introduce themselves.
3:40pm
all the bits and bulbs keep themselves stocked. and the doors even handle the checkout so we can work on that thing that's stuck in the thing. [ female announcer ] today, cisco is connecting the internet of everything. so everyone goes home happy. still running in the morning? yeah. getting your vegetables every day? when i can. [ bop ] [ male announcer ] could've had a v8. two full servings of vegetables for only 50 delicious calories.
3:41pm
[ male announcer ] if we could see energy... what would we see? ♪ the billions of gallons of fuel that get us to work. ♪ we'd see all the electricity flowing through the devices that connect us and teach us. ♪ we'd see that almost 100% of medical plastics are made from oil and natural gas. ♪ and an industry that supports almost 10 million american jobs. life takes energy. and no one applies more technology to produce american energy and refine it more efficiently than exxonmobil. because using energy responsibly has never been more important. energy lives here. ♪
3:42pm
adt can help you turn on a few lights. ♪ access cameras from anywhere to help you keep an eye on things. ♪ even bring family in from the cold when you're not there. now get the advanced technology of adt starting at just $79 plus a camera at no additional charge. with adt, you get 24/7 fast response monitoring that helps protect you from burglary, fire, and high levels of carbon monoxide. plus remote access to your home. even control your thermostat to help save energy. get adt installed starting at just $79.
3:43pm
plus a camera at no additional charge. that's a total savings of over $450 -- adt's best holiday offer. for everything that matters most. ♪ adt. always there. welcome back. in the crossfire tonight, governor abercrombie and former minnesota governor tim pawlenty. we're facing yet another deadline, the house of representatives leaves town at the end of the week, but there is still a lot of work to do. a narrow budget deal, and a piecemeal for unemployment benefits shouldn't be what we're
3:44pm
looking for. we need big ideas. it drives me personally crazy that we have at least $200 billion a year given to crooks. this evidence is pretty clear. recently it was reported the i.r.s. spent $4 billion in refunds to taxes to people who shouldn't have gotten them, 353 check toss one address in shanghai. 650 checks to lithuania. this is a level of incompetent on a scale because you have bureaucrats with paper, and crooks who have ipads. the second, what i've talked about going back to american enterprise speeches. we were just told with the passing of president nelson mandela that, even though he had visited five times, he was not delisted as a terrorist until 2008. now, how bad does the state department bureaucracy have to be in order to not notice that a
3:45pm
sitting president is visiting the country and still on the list. finally something i want to ask governor abercrombie as an example -- >> i can't wait. >> i think this is one you'll be 100% with me. >> if you want a limited number of defense budget, wouldn't you rather see it spent at pearl harbor on real folks in the front lines than seeing it spent in thepentagon? every i.t. as it relates t obamca, relates to the defense partnt theyave a terrible procurement, wouldn't you -- speaking as an alum news of the armed services committee, as i am, i've had precisely those kinds of not arguments, but discussions, to how do we really advance the strategic interests of is the united states in terms of the pentagon. and often we got involved in programs, particularly in the acquisition of capital assets, planes and ships and combat
3:46pm
systems, that got into the billions of dollars which actually undermined our readine readiness, in my estimation, and undermined or capacity to be able to respond to whatever military emergency was there. so not only do i not argue with that, i think we existed in an atmosphere in the armed services committee, when i was privileged to serve with you, where republicans and democrats did work to do exactly that. the atmosphere in the congress now, i'm sorry to say, from your side of the aisle, mr. speaker, is not conducive to that kind of efficiency. >> which brings me to you, governor. first, i agree 100%. certainly there are things that government could do better, but it's difficult when you have a party committed as see the government as an enemy rather than being part of the answer. i am curious. there seems to be now, a possible thaw. paul ryan, who has been the paul revere for these harsh cutbacks
3:47pm
and take no prisoners approach is now apparently waving the white flag a bit. it looks like the deal that's coming up, we're going to raise the revenues, bust these spending caps. are we seeing the beginning of a more reasonable paul rye jan? a more reasonable republican party? will you support paul ryan when the crazies come after him? >> let me applaud the speaker for a classic newtonian description. continued hats off. on the issue of competency, if you and i went to dinner right after this show, van and i paid with my visa card or american sxres card, we would have a charge that would be instantly registered almost 100% accurate and on my doorstep invoice 28 days later, it's almost always accurate. people look at that and go, why can't government do something even close to that from a competency, accuracy, efficiency
3:48pm
standpoint. that's newt's point. on your last point on the budget deal, look, they're arguing pretty narrow differences, so top be able to split the defense, soften some of the defense cuts, take care of some of the emergency needs, that's not hard and i encourage them to do it. >> but your party shut the government down -- >> when you tough the stove and your hand guts burned, you generally don't go back very quickly. they don't have many appetite currently. they're not going to do that? january s they got spanked pretty bad last time. >> you agree that paul ryan is now waving the white flag. >> no, he's not waving the white flag. he's being a constructive leader and taking some heat for it, because he wants to close the gap in a divided government. get what? that takes leadership and courage. >> waving the white flag. he's standing up and being a leader. >> i think the govrns is suggesting we accept yes.
3:49pm
>> for the risk of discouraging van, you were with us in the '90s when bill clinton and i worked, and the only four balanced budgets came out at that time. i think you announced proudly you balanced the budget this year without raising taxes. >> yes. from a serious deficit to a positive balance of more than a billion in three years. >> so should that be an explicit goal of both parties in washington, d.c., to get back to a balanced budget? >> yes, to a degree. i'll refer back to defense, for example. at the federal government level, we need to balance our priorities. now, whether the budget in any given year is balanced in the sense that both governor pawlenty and i have to do it at the state level is another matter for discussion. what we -- in balancing priorities, then we have to balance what our expenditures are in terms of what is the return from investment.
3:50pm
so an absolute commitment to a balanced budget in accountancy terms may not be in the interests of the united states at a given balance expenditures against revenues and then be reasonable about what we are willing to invest in terms of getting revenues, just to be against taxes per se means to be against our own national interest. >> speaking of balance, we did have a guy who ran for office saying he would take a balanced approach if president obama won based on that. i think there is still a grand bargain out there to be had. liberals like myself might not like it. but republicans can't seem to meet it. $10 of spending cuts for one dollar of tax revenue, you said would you raise your hand today
3:51pm
on this show if democrats came forward and said we'll give you a 10-1 deal? >> it's not that simple. do we get any reform? or just put more money in the machine and have it distributed like it is? >> i need your help on this. the president has offended the liberal wing of our party, which i am. why won't republicans -- >> look. this thing has been white papered, lectured to death. the question is, do you have the will to do any of it? the tax code has to be flatter and you need to de-special deal the tax code. that sounds easy, but when you get into the details, everybody balks. they might be for tax reform that lowers rates, expands the
3:52pm
base and over time helps the economy. if you can put that together you have the possibility of a grand bargain. >> you sound like my president. why did you raise your hand when obviously that question was, are you willing to do a deal 10-1 positive for democrats, negative for republicans. >> when i was the governor, the question isn't will republicans never raise one dime of revenue, they have. what are you getting for it by way of reform and accountability and change? >> stay right there. we're going to try too finish this question up. i have a couple more questions for you. but next, the final question for both of you guys, i also want you folks at home to get involved. you can weigh in on today's fire-back question. do you support extending
3:53pm
unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed? we'll be back after this break. stick with innovation. stick with power. stick with technology. get the new flexcare platinum from philips sonicare and save now. philips sonicare. you can fill that box and pay one flat rate. i didn't know the coal thing was real. it's very real... david rivera. rivera, david. [ male announcer ] fedex one rate. simple, flat rate shipping with the reliability of fedex.
3:54pm
[ male announcer ] fedex one rate. every day we're working to and to keep our commitments. and we've made a big commitment to america. bp supports nearly 250,000 jobs here. through all of our energy operations, we invest more in the u.s. than any other place in the world. in fact, we've invested over $55 billion here in the last five years - making bp america's largest energy investor. our commitment has never been stronger. to share with family. [ woman 2 ] to carry on traditions. [ woman 3 ] to come together
3:55pm
even when we're apart. [ male announcer ] in stuffing, mashed potatoes, gravy and more, swanson makes holiday dishes delicious. i get times are tight. but it's hard to get any work done like this. then came this baby -- small but with windows and office. it runs my work stuff. ...and i can use apps like flipboard for news, or xbox video to watch the shows i'm never home to see... and i can still get work done at the same time. excuse me, do you mind if i...
3:56pm
yep. ♪ honestly, i wanna see you be brave ♪
3:57pm
we are back with neil abercrombie and tim pawlenty. you had mentioned earlier that republican also burned their hands on the stove. don't you agree that the shutdown was such a disaster
3:58pm
that it gave the democrats leverage that they can push the republicans farther? how far would you go in this new environment? >> that was all true for about 48 hours until obama care imploded. >> we almost got through a whole show without you -- >> in a jujitsu like maneuver, the politics changed again. so people need toe focus on the art of the possible. there are certain things that democrats are never going to do. they're never going to significantly cut social security. but there's some things that they can do, and that's what they should focus on. we wish we could have the grand bargain. let's focus on the art of the possible and move the country forward. >> you just had the person in charge of the obama care website tender her resignation and i
3:59pm
think you accepted it. >> no. just to be unique, we have a non-profit organization. the state is not running it. if it was, i would be in charge. >> would you have accepted it? >> what happened was somebody from our organization is going to step in. what we're going to do is take it to where the people are. this, after all, is not an argument about president obama, not an argument about whether to advance the insurance companies. it's to get insurance to people who don't have it. so we're going out to the community health centers, the drugstores, we're going to do it in three dimensions, with people in real time. >> if you were president and secretary sebelius offered her resignation, would you accept it? >> i wouldn't raise my hand either. you're talking about tax raises in a debate. that's just a hypothetical question about secretary sebelius. my concentration, just as it is
4:00pm
with unemployment is not worrying about the compensation getting the jobs. i'm not interested in the website, i'm interested in getting the uninsured insured. the tyranny of television, you have to say thank you to both. go back to our fire back question. do you support extending unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed. right now 54% of you say yes. 46% say no. >> i can't believe it. it continues online at crossfire. i'm van jones. >> and i'm newt gingrich. erin burnett starts right now. out front, next, the memorial for nelson mandela will be unlike any we have ever seen, and who will be sitting next to the